News

Blood testing to go to private company

CAMPAIGNERS have spoken of their anger after plans for a private blood testing centre serving the NHS in south Essex were approved.

Southend Keep Our NHS Public spoke out after the Echo revealed private firm Integrated Pathology Partnerships will take over the non-emergency blood testing contract from Southend and Basildon hospitals next year.

It comes after Basildon Council gave the firm planning permission to develop a blood test laboratory to serve both trusts in Bentalls, Basildon.

The plan to keep blood testing in south Essex came after a plan to transfer non-emergency blood testing 80 miles away to Bedford collapsed following an Echo campaign.

Norman Traub, secretary of the Southend branch of the campaign group, said: “Pathology staff at both Southend and Basildon hospitals will be transferred to Integrated Pathology Services.

“A poorer service, cuts in staff and less rewarding contracts to staff recruited in the future, as compared to the existing contracts for the former NHS staff, can be expected from private companies seeking to increase profits for their shareholders.

“The standards of pathology services in the NHS being run at present by private companies have deteriorated.

“The diversion of funds for NHS services to private companies further destabilises the finances of hospitals dependent on revenue earned from the NHS.”

He claimed 70 per cent of the contracts for NHS services awarded in England between April and December 2013 went to private companies.

He added: “The privatisation of the NHS set out in the Health and Social Care Act passed by the Government in 2012 is being vigorously pursued by the Department of Health.

“Together with flatlining of the budget for the NHS for the past four years, with a ten-year flatline planned for 2021 by Chancellor George Osborne, the NHS is being throttled.”

Both hospitals claim private involvement of non-emergency tests will help them reduce costs and improve the service.

Comments (8)

Is it now cheaper? Better? Quicker? If yes to those, then I don't see the problem. Resources are scarce... If saving can be made then do it. As long as the NHS remains free at the point of delivery then this is exactly what they ought to be doing.

Is it now cheaper? Better? Quicker? If yes to those, then I don't see the problem. Resources are scarce... If saving can be made then do it. As long as the NHS remains free at the point of delivery then this is exactly what they ought to be doing.Hawthorne

This country is all about greed. What's best for the community always takes a back seat. At the end of the day the only way to stop what's happening is to scare those who would seek to destroy the nhs enough to rein them back in from their wallet driven, money worshipping existences.

This country is all about greed. What's best for the community always takes a back seat. At the end of the day the only way to stop what's happening is to scare those who would seek to destroy the nhs enough to rein them back in from their wallet driven, money worshipping existences.ROBOTS' REBELLION

ROBOTS' REBELLION wrote:
This country is all about greed. What's best for the community always takes a back seat. At the end of the day the only way to stop what's happening is to scare those who would seek to destroy the nhs enough to rein them back in from their wallet driven, money worshipping existences.

I don't see that this is about greed? Who's being greedy? The NHS, brilliant though it is, cannot continue in its current form with an aging population. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. If a function can be done better and cheaper privately then everyone wins...the tax-payer, the private firm and their employees. This problem needs critical thinking not doe-eyed sentimentality.

[quote][p][bold]ROBOTS' REBELLION[/bold] wrote:
This country is all about greed. What's best for the community always takes a back seat. At the end of the day the only way to stop what's happening is to scare those who would seek to destroy the nhs enough to rein them back in from their wallet driven, money worshipping existences.[/p][/quote]I don't see that this is about greed? Who's being greedy? The NHS, brilliant though it is, cannot continue in its current form with an aging population. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. If a function can be done better and cheaper privately then everyone wins...the tax-payer, the private firm and their employees. This problem needs critical thinking not doe-eyed sentimentality.Hawthorne

The problem here is not about the blood tests but the fact that patient information is being passed to yet another company. We all threw our arms up over care.data but is this not another way of patient data being passed outside the NHS?

the more folk that can access patient data, the greater chance of identity fraud.

Whist we have the DPA, it isn't worth the paper it is written on, thousands work for the NHS, do we all believe they are trustworthy .... of course not!

The problem here is not about the blood tests but the fact that patient information is being passed to yet another company. We all threw our arms up over care.data but is this not another way of patient data being passed outside the NHS?
the more folk that can access patient data, the greater chance of identity fraud.
Whist we have the DPA, it isn't worth the paper it is written on, thousands work for the NHS, do we all believe they are trustworthy .... of course not!runwellian

Hawthorne wrote:
Is it now cheaper? Better? Quicker? If yes to those, then I don't see the problem. Resources are scarce... If saving can be made then do it. As long as the NHS remains free at the point of delivery then this is exactly what they ought to be doing.

When you introduce the element of needing to make a profit something has to give, either service or pay & conditions for staff.

[quote][p][bold]Hawthorne[/bold] wrote:
Is it now cheaper? Better? Quicker? If yes to those, then I don't see the problem. Resources are scarce... If saving can be made then do it. As long as the NHS remains free at the point of delivery then this is exactly what they ought to be doing.[/p][/quote]When you introduce the element of needing to make a profit something has to give, either service or pay & conditions for staff.Mattster

Hawthorne wrote:
Is it now cheaper? Better? Quicker? If yes to those, then I don't see the problem. Resources are scarce... If saving can be made then do it. As long as the NHS remains free at the point of delivery then this is exactly what they ought to be doing.

When you introduce the element of needing to make a profit something has to give, either service or pay &amp; conditions for staff.

True, unless the existing process is so woefully inefficient such that there's room for savings and a profit.

[quote][p][bold]Mattster[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Hawthorne[/bold] wrote:
Is it now cheaper? Better? Quicker? If yes to those, then I don't see the problem. Resources are scarce... If saving can be made then do it. As long as the NHS remains free at the point of delivery then this is exactly what they ought to be doing.[/p][/quote]When you introduce the element of needing to make a profit something has to give, either service or pay & conditions for staff.[/p][/quote]True, unless the existing process is so woefully inefficient such that there's room for savings and a profit.Hawthorne